Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the ranking inputs, discloses the 0-100 scale and GEM/WATCH/NOISE staging, mentions reasons/warnings and round-trip tax cost, and honestly flags that higher scores did not beat the market in a paper test. It never states that the call is read-only or whether it's rate-limited, which is the remaining gap for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then scoring mechanics, caveat, and routing — every sentence contributes. The mid-sentence metric list (holder payout, holders, size, turnover, age, momentum, quote-asset strength) is dense, but it is substantive rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape, which it does by describing the stage labels, per-coin reasons/warnings, tax cost, and 0-100 score. Combined with the explicit non-forecast caveat and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the six parameters (limit, category, quote_mint, min_holders, max_age_days, max_market_cap_usd) are already fully documented, including defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (shortlist StonkFun reward coins) plus the exact scope qualifier (alive, paying, liquid). It names the concrete scoring dimensions and output stages, so an agent can distinguish it from generic screener siblings like stonk_screener without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger phrase ('what is alive on StonkFun right now?') and routes the agent to specific follow-ups (stonk_creator, stonk_quote) before sizing. It also sets a clear when-not expectation by stating this is a liveness ranking, not a price forecast.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.